New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Disstevefan1]

Anyone can call and ask about anything. That’s as it should be. But when the website says that DAS is intended for people who have a developmental disability such as autism, why would someone who doesn’t have that disability apply for DAS?

Maybe this is being made more difficult because of the history of DAS. If Disney started an entirely new program specifically intended for people who are unable to stand in lines because of autism, would you expect people with other disabilities to apply?

I’m not saying Disney isn’t on solid legal ground - I think they are and I believe this program is the best they can do for people unable to handle Disney’s lines.

But I think it’s disingenuous to read their language as an invitation for people who are not the intended beneficiaries of DAS to ask for it.

I know what unambiguous language looks like and this isn’t it.

I took their language right off their website:

"Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar disorder, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."

Two things that I question -
"or similar", I do not know what means.
The comma - (disorder, are unable) , does the comma mean "and" or does the comma mean "or" int this text?

 

[Chi84]

This is because physical disabilities can be accommodated with their other options whereas severe intellectual disabilities cannot.

The hang-up seems to be that people are insisting that not all physical disabilities can be accommodated in line, which is true. There are some physical disabilities so severe that they can’t be accommodated at all and others that can’t be reasonably accommodated given Disney’s business model.

 

[jennab55]

Anyone can call and ask about anything. That’s as it should be. But when the website says that DAS is intended for people who have a developmental disability such as autism, why would someone who doesn’t have that disability apply for DAS?

Maybe this is being made more difficult because of the history of DAS. If Disney started an entirely new program specifically intended for people who are unable to stand in lines because of autism, would you expect people with other disabilities to apply?

I’m not saying Disney isn’t on solid legal ground - I think they are and I believe this program is the best they can do for people unable to handle Disney’s lines.

But I think it’s disingenuous to read their language as an invitation for people who are not the intended beneficiaries of DAS to ask for it.

I know what unambiguous language looks like and this isn’t it.

I think Disney is intending for only people with those types of disabilities to apply for DAS. However, some people don’t state their disability and could have similar issues as people with developmental disabilities do, so still fall into that area for an approval.

 

[NotTheOne]

Have you read this thread?

Yes - have you?

 

[Chi84]

I think Disney is intending for only people with those types of disabilities to apply for DAS. However, some people don’t state their disability and could have similar issues as people with developmental disabilities do still fall into that area for an approval?

I think that’s what Disney means by developmental disabilities such as autism or a similar disorder.

 

[NotTheOne]

Anyone can call and ask about anything. That’s as it should be. But when the website says that DAS is intended for people who have a developmental disability such as autism, why would someone who doesn’t have that disability apply for DAS?

Maybe this is being made more difficult because of the history of DAS. If Disney started an entirely new program specifically intended for people who are unable to stand in lines because of autism, would you expect people with other disabilities to apply?

I’m not saying Disney isn’t on solid legal ground - I think they are and I believe this program is the best they can do for people unable to handle Disney’s lines.

But I think it’s disingenuous to read their language as an invitation for people who are not the intended beneficiaries of DAS to ask for it.

I know what unambiguous language looks like and this isn’t it.

Again, your opinion. It would seem that all of the people with physical disabilities who called and were denied, along with the apparently few who were approved, understood quite well that they were free to call.

 

[Chi84]

Again, your opinion. It would seem that all of the people with physical disabilities who called and were denied, along with the apparently few who were approved, understood quite well that they were free to call.

I was talking about the ones who didn’t call because Disney said the program isn’t for them.

 

[NotTheOne]

I was talking about the ones who didn’t call because Disney said the program isn’t for them.

Yes, I know. My point is that if, as you claim, it is unambiguous that Disney is blanket denying physical disabilities based on the wording on their website, then why did so many people with physical disabilities call to try to get the DAS?

 

[Chi84]

Yes, I know. My point is that if, as you claim, it is unambiguous that Disney is blanket denying physical disabilities based on the wording on their website, then why did so many people with physical disabilities call to try to get the DAS?

Optimism?

 

[jennab55]

Yes, I know. My point is that if, as you claim, it is unambiguous that Disney is blanket denying physical disabilities based on the wording on their website, then why did so many people with physical disabilities call to try to get the DAS?

I think this is just all the past people who had DAS. I feel like any person who had never gone to Disney before and didn’t know about DAS would not apply for it based on the website wording. I also don’t think that is wrong. Disney doesn’t think those people should apply either.

 

[NotTheOne]

I think this is just all the past people who had DAS. I feel like any person who had never gone to Disney before and didn’t know about DAS would not apply for it based on the website wording. I also don’t think that is wrong. Disney doesn’t think those people should apply either.

Totally get that, and I agree, but then it can't be said that the statement itself is a blanket denial - that was my point.

 

[phillip9698]

That’s why I said “anymore”, Disney had a well earned reputation for going above and beyond and being the most accessible place for everyone, which likely lead to the problem of too many people with DAS in the first place, people need to accept that’s not true anymore, now they’re like everyone else. If the new system works for your disability that’s great, if it doesn’t it’s time to accept “old Disney” is gone and find a new place that still wants your business. It’s sad but not complicated.

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Disney is becoming more like "everyone else" so the solution is to go to the other places that have already and continue to be much less accommodating than Disney and give them your money?

If that's the case then the level of accomodation isn't the reason you are going elsewhere, it's spite.

 

[Chi84]

I think this is just all the past people who had DAS. I feel like any person who had never gone to Disney before and didn’t know about DAS would not apply for it based on the website wording. I also don’t think that is wrong. Disney doesn’t think those people should apply either.

Exactly.

 

[DryerLintFan]

I took their language right off their website:

"Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar disorder, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."

Two things that I question -
"or similar", I do not know what means.
The comma - (disorder, are unable) , does the comma mean "and" or does the comma mean "or" int this text?

Beginning of sentence, clarifying context, end of sentence

It’s neither and nor or.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Beginning of sentence, clarifying context, end of sentence

It’s neither and nor or.

Therefore, the comma
like autism or similar disorder, are unable

Should be understood as:
like autism or similar disorder that are unable

?

Sincerely trying to understand.

 

[Angel Ariel]

IEPs shouldn't be used as proof because they are an IEP - but I can understand how the supporting material for an IEP can be seen as relevant to documenting an issue to someone else.

It's back to the topic of 'IEP' doesn't mean a specific accommodation just like 'autism' doesn't. In both cases there are specific limitations that lead to that broader conclusion, and it's the documenting of those limitations where the relevance is.

Agreed completely

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Therefore, the comma
like autism or similar disorder, are unable

Should be understood as:
like autism or similar disorder that are unable

?

Sincerely trying to understand.

"Guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar disorder, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." That can be rewritten to say:

"Guests who are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time due to a developmental disability like autism or similar disorder."

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Disney is becoming more like "everyone else" so the solution is to go to the other places that have already and continue to be much less accommodating than Disney and give them your money?

If that's the case then the level of accomodation isn't the reason you are going elsewhere, it's spite.

I’m not talking about going to other theme parks that are similarly equipped to accommodate people with disabilities, I’m talking about cruises, Europe, national parks, and the millions of other places that are fighting for our vacation dollars, many were formerly more difficult to visit than Disney thanks to DAS, most are now easier to visit than Disney thanks to the loss of DAS.

It’s a huge world that consists of a lot of places that aren’t theme parks.

 

[Angel Ariel]

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Disney is becoming more like "everyone else" so the solution is to go to the other places that have already and continue to be much less accommodating than Disney and give them your money?

If that's the case then the level of accomodation isn't the reason you are going elsewhere, it's spite.

I don't speak for @Vegas Disney Fan , but I think the calculus people are making now is if the level of accommodations at Disney now is the same level of accommodations as many other places due to these new changes, then people are likely to look at the options that now have similar accommodation level to Disney but are significantly less expensive than Disney.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don't speak for @Vegas Disney Fan , but I think the calculus people are making now is if the level of accommodations at Disney now is the same level of accommodations as many other places due to these new changes, then people are likely to look at the options that now have similar accommodation level to Disney but are significantly less expensive than Disney.

This is definitely a factor also, ten years ago there was a massive price difference between a trip to Disney and a trip to Europe, that price difference has diminished greatly over the years.

When the option was a week in Paris for $5k vs a week in WDW for $2k they were in different leagues, especially when WDW was so much easier since you got luggage delivery, Magical Express, free FP, etc… from the time you got off the plane at MCO until the time you got back on the plane at MCO Disney took care of you. Now it’s a week in Paris for $10k vs a week in WDW for $8k, and you have to take care of your luggage, rental cars/ride shares, etc yourself and a compatible experience now includes micro transactions that eat into that price difference even further… the price difference has diminished and the ease of the WDW vacation has diminished, this makes Paris (or London, or Oslo, etc) a much more appealing alternative.

It also makes places like Yellowstone, that were formerly a similarly priced vacation, much more appealing since they’re now much cheaper than a Disney vacation.